In re Blum

IN RE BRUCE D. BLUM, RESPONDENT. A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

Before Glickman and Washington, Associate Judges, and Newman, Senior Judge.

Per curiam.

On Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility

(BDN 89-03)

Submitted September 2, 2004

On March 10, 2003, respondent Bruce D. Blum was disbarred by the Maryland Court of Appeals for, among other things, commingling, dishonesty, conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, false representation of material facts, and failing to respond to demands for information from Maryland disciplinary authorities.*fn1 See Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Blum, 818 A.2d 219 (Md. 2003). The decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals contains a complete discussion of the underlying facts, see id., but, essentially, respondent has been disbarred in that jurisdiction for failing to return approximately $700 to a former client in a timely fashion, falsifying evidence to cover up that fact, and then lying to both Maryland Bar Counsel and a Maryland Circuit Court judge about his actions.*fn2

Respondent's disbarrment was reported to this court, and on April 28, 2003, we suspended him pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (d) and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility ("Board"). The Board now recommends the respondent be disbarred as reciprocal discipline. Bar Counsel has informed the court that she takes no exception to the Board's report and recommendation, nor has respondent filed any exceptions to the Board's report and recommendation.

Because of the rebuttable presumption favoring identical reciprocal discipline, see In re Goldsborough, 654 A.2d 1285 (D.C. 1995); D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (f), the lack of anything in the record to indicate that reciprocal discipline is inappropriate, see D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 (c), and our heightened deference to the Board when its recommendation is unopposed, see id. at § 11 (f), we adopt the Board's recommendation. We note further that either misappropriation or falsifying documents alone would have been sufficient to disbar the respondent in this jurisdiction. See In re Addams, 579 A.2d 190, 191 (D.C. 1990) (en banc) ("[I]n virtually all cases of misappropriation, disbarrment will be the only appropriate action[.]"); In re Marshall, 762 A.2d 530 (D.C. 2000) (submission of fabricated documents warrants disbarrment). Such actions are, as we have said, "unthinkable" for a member of the bar of this court. Id. at 536. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Bruce D. Blum is disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Moreover, since respondent has not filed the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), we direct his attention to the requirements of that rule and their effect on his eligibility for reinstatement. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16 (c).

So ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.